Ozzie bunting when he should run

[iamshack]

I know this issue has been brought up a few times in recent game threads, so I thought I would post the article on a slow 4th of July...

 

ESPN

 

And yet, five times this year, with Pierre on first and nobody out in late-inning situations, Ozzie Guillen has called for a sacrifice bunt to get him to second.

Edited July 5, 2010 by iamshack

[Heads22]

It's not Neyer, it's Jim of SoxMachine.

[iamshack]

It's not Neyer, it's Jim of SoxMachine.

Oh you're right...for some reason they posted it in Neyer's "Sweet Spot" Column..

[Jordan4life_2007]

Five times? Wow. I remember a couple instances. But that is pretty sad. JP's got exactly one tool. It should be maximized to the fullest.

[whitesoxfan101]

There's really no point in even letting him bat if he's not going to be allowed to try and steal upon reaching in spots like that.

[Balta1701]

Ozzie did that a lot with Podsednik/Iguchi in 2005 though too.

[BigSqwert]

Ozzie did that a lot with Podsednik/Iguchi in 2005 though too.

It's still the wrong move.

[chw42]

He did it twice with Gordon Beckham in one game.

[bmags]

yep. embarrassing.

 

But these 5 plays won't break the whole season, remember that guys!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111111111110001010101010101010111

[chw42]

yep. embarrassing.

 

But these 5 plays won't break the whole season, remember that guys!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111111111110001010101010101010111

 

How can 5 plays make or break the season when one game can't?

 

That said, I don't think people are pissed at these 5 plays, they're worried that it will continue.

[bmags]

How can 5 plays make or break the season when one game can't?

 

That said, I don't think people are pissed at these 5 plays, they're worried that it will continue.

 

it's a running joke about a certain esteemed former poster

[chw42]

it's a running joke about a certain esteemed former poster

 

I know, one game isn't going to make or break a season.

[Ranger]

Five times? Wow. I remember a couple instances. But that is pretty sad. JP's got exactly one tool. It should be maximized to the fullest.

 

It's still the wrong move.

 

It's not always the wrong move. I know some people are married to the idea that you should never lay down a bunt EVER, but it's simply not that concrete. The statistic that suggests that bunting is always a bad idea is too broad and attempts to generalize a very specific strategic situation. Every potential bunting situation should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. There are occasions that the most important thing to do is get that tying/go-ahead run to second. And while Pierre does have a lot of stolen bases, he is not automatic. It is sometimes too big of a risk in close/late situations to have him get thrown out trying to steal. The only thing worse than runner at 2nd, one out is nobody on, one out. When one run matters, it isn't always a dumb idea to sac the man over...even if that guy is a stolen base threat.

[chw42]

It's not always the wrong move. I know some people are married to the idea that you should never lay down a bunt EVER, but it's simply not that concrete. The statistic that suggests that bunting is always a bad idea is too broad and attempts to generalize a very specific strategic situation. Every potential bunting situation should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. There are occasions that the most important thing to do is get that tying/go-ahead run to second. And while Pierre does have a lot of stolen bases, he is not automatic. It is sometimes too big of a risk in close/late situations to have him get thrown out trying to steal. The only thing worse than runner at 2nd, one out is nobody on, one out. When one run matters, it isn't always a dumb idea to sac the man over...even if that guy is a stolen base threat.

I have a lot of issues with bunting a speedster over to second base. If you want to bunt him to third, that's fine, you'll only increase your run expectancy that way. But when you bunt him to second, you lose run expectancy. Call it broad or what have you, but you never want to give up an out.

 

If the Sox really need that one run, like they're down 1 and it's the 8th or 9th, I'm okay with bunting him over. The risk there of him getting caught stealing is far too large. However, if the Sox need an insurance run or you're at home and the game is tied, you need to take that risk sometimes. Ozzie always lets Pierre and Rios run in the middle of a game no matter what the situation is (including letting Pierre run with a 3-0 count the other day). Why not let them do the same in a tied game or a time where you need an insurance run? In those cases, the game is not exactly on the line. If they do get caught, you're most likely not going to lose a game because of it. But if they succeed, you really increase your chances of winning.

Edited July 15, 2010 by chw42

[fathom]

Thing is, most relievers do not hold on runners very well (especially righties). It's not like we're talking about situations with Terry Mulholland or Andy Pettitte on the mound. There's no excuse to be bunting Pierre into 2nd and basically taking the bat out of the hands of Rios.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

[Ranger]

I have a lot of issues with bunting a speedster over to second base. If you want to bunt him to third, that's fine, you'll only increase your run expectancy that way. But when you bunt him to second, you lose run expectancy. Call it broad or what have you, but you never want to give up an out.

 

If the Sox really need that one run, like they're down 1 and it's the 8th or 9th, I'm okay with bunting him over. The risk there of him getting caught stealing is far too large. However, if the Sox need an insurance run or you're at home and the game is tied, you need to take that risk sometimes. Ozzie always lets Pierre and Rios run in the middle of a game no matter what the situation is (including letting Pierre run with a 3-0 count the other day). Why not let them do the same in a tied game or a time where you need an insurance run? In those cases, the game is not exactly on the line. If they do get caught, you're most likely not going to lose a game because of it. But if they succeed, you really increase your chances of winning.

 

I agree sometimes the risk is fine. My point is that it is not ALWAYS the wrong move EVERY time to bunt Pierre. There are times that it can be done.

 

 

Thing is, most relievers do not hold on runners very well (especially righties). It's not like we're talking about situations with Terry Mulholland or Andy Pettitte on the mound. There's no excuse to be bunting Pierre into 2nd and basically taking the bat out of the hands of Rios.

 

I'll take Konerko up with 1st and 2nd, 1 out and I'll take it every time. The excuse to do it is that you have the potential game-tying or game-winning run on second with one of your team's best hitters at the plate. The alternative is that Pierre attempts a steal, gets thrown out and two batters later you end up with nobody on, 2 out for Rios. I'll take the former scenario any day of the week.

 

And when a reliever doesn't have a good move, that's likely the time you'll see them take advantage of it. Even if that is the case, though, a stolen base is not automatic which sometimes makes the risk too great to attempt it.

 

[chw42]

I did a little more digging around for this.

 

From 2000-2004, there were over 5700 bunt attempts with a runner on first and nobody out, which means the batter at least attempted to bunt at a pitch sometime in the at bat.

 

In this case, the batter reached base or advanced the runner 69.1% of the time, meaning he failed 30.9% of the time. Overall, this case had a run expectancy of .831 runs (because these are just at bats where bunts were attempted, some of these at bats could have resulted in the hitter swinging away due to fouling off two strikes, etc). This does not include pitchers bunting.

 

However, of the successful sac bunts, the run expectancy was .7. So there is a .131 run advantage in bunt attempts over actual sac bunts, that alone seems, well, weird, considering that this includes the 30.9% failure rate (getting out with no base advance). Then you have to also think about the run expectancy advantage of just swinging away, where the run expectancy is .875 (not .9). So usually, swinging away has its advantages and generally, sac bunts are bad.

 

This also applies in late inning high leverage situations. The sac bunt, in almost every case, decreases win expectancy (this is from actual data from the 70s, where bunts were still used a lot). The decrease is not gigantic, it's less than 1% in fact, but in general, the bunt in late inning situations does not help you.

 

Of course, you have to take numerous views at this. It really depends on who is pitching, who is running ,and who is hitting. However, keep in mind that the average hitter that bunted from 2000-2004 had a .343 wOBA, above average. Of all these hitters, 40% were mediocre, 40% were bad, and 20% were good (based on wOBA). It seems like some managers are wasting outs.

 

 

[Ranger]

I did a little more digging around for this.

 

From 2000-2004, there were over 5700 bunt attempts with a runner on first and nobody out, which means the batter at least attempted to bunt at a pitch sometime in the at bat.

 

In this case, the batter reached base or advanced the runner 69.1% of the time, meaning he failed 30.9% of the time. Overall, this case had a run expectancy of .831 runs (because these are just at bats where bunts were attempted, some of these at bats could have resulted in the hitter swinging away due to fouling off two strikes, etc). This does not include pitchers bunting.

 

However, of the successful sac bunts, the run expectancy was .7. So there is a .131 run advantage in bunt attempts over actual sac bunts, that alone seems, well, weird, considering that this includes the 30.9% failure rate (getting out with no base advance). Then you have to also think about the run expectancy advantage of just swinging away, where the run expectancy is .875 (not .9). So usually, swinging away has its advantages and generally, sac bunts are bad.

 

This also applies in late inning high leverage situations. The sac bunt, in almost every case, decreases win expectancy (this is from actual data from the 70s, where bunts were still used a lot). The decrease is not gigantic, it's less than 1% in fact, but in general, the bunt in late inning situations does not help you.

 

Of course, you have to take numerous views at this. It really depends on who is pitching, who is running ,and who is hitting. However, keep in mind that the average hitter that bunted from 2000-2004 had a .343 wOBA, above average. Of all these hitters, 40% were mediocre, 40% were bad, and 20% were good (based on wOBA). It seems like some managers are wasting outs.

 

Yeah, I'm aware of this number. But like you said, this is true in general, but it is not true for every specific case. When a team is playing for one run, and one run only, the sacrifice is not a bad bet. If you're playing for multiple runs, it's not a good idea. And like you said, that number does not take into account who's pitching, who's up next, who's in the hole, who's on base, and the situation overall. Every scenario is different.

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

I did a little more digging around for this.

 

From 2000-2004, there were over 5700 bunt attempts with a runner on first and nobody out, which means the batter at least attempted to bunt at a pitch sometime in the at bat.

 

In this case, the batter reached base or advanced the runner 69.1% of the time, meaning he failed 30.9% of the time. Overall, this case had a run expectancy of .831 runs (because these are just at bats where bunts were attempted, some of these at bats could have resulted in the hitter swinging away due to fouling off two strikes, etc). This does not include pitchers bunting.

 

However, of the successful sac bunts, the run expectancy was .7. So there is a .131 run advantage in bunt attempts over actual sac bunts, that alone seems, well, weird, considering that this includes the 30.9% failure rate (getting out with no base advance). Then you have to also think about the run expectancy advantage of just swinging away, where the run expectancy is .875 (not .9). So usually, swinging away has its advantages and generally, sac bunts are bad.

 

This also applies in late inning high leverage situations. The sac bunt, in almost every case, decreases win expectancy (this is from actual data from the 70s, where bunts were still used a lot). The decrease is not gigantic, it's less than 1% in fact, but in general, the bunt in late inning situations does not help you.

 

Of course, you have to take numerous views at this. It really depends on who is pitching, who is running ,and who is hitting. However, keep in mind that the average hitter that bunted from 2000-2004 had a .343 wOBA, above average. Of all these hitters, 40% were mediocre, 40% were bad, and 20% were good (based on wOBA). It seems like some managers are wasting outs.

 

Dude, I've known you for less than a year and you're one of my favorite posters ever. I love detail. You're right there there with Kalapse and Qwerty and that gay dude named Witesoxfan (and I love my brothers Soxace lol@the reed switch, Rowand44, Heads and Palehose).

 

[fathom]

Dude, I've known you for less than a year and you're one of my favorite posters ever. I love detail. You're right there there with Kalapse and Qwerty and that gay dude named Witesoxfan (and I love my brothers Soxace lol@the reed switch, Rowand44, Heads and Palehose).

 

Seriously, that was a fantastic post by him. It's not only that it's dumb baseball, but also how about the fact that it just hasn't benefited the Sox this season?

[Jordan4life_2007]

Seriously, that was a fantastic post by him. It's not only that it's dumb baseball, but also how about the fact that it just hasn't benefited the Sox this season?

 

And you're one of my favorites as well (not that you care). lol.

[fathom]

And you're one of my favorites as well (not that you care). lol.

 

I have more fun talking with you about non Sox stuff than anything else.

[chw42]

Yeah, I'm aware of this number. But like you said, this is true in general, but it is not true for every specific case. When a team is playing for one run, and one run only, the sacrifice is not a bad bet. If you're playing for multiple runs, it's not a good idea. And like you said, that number does not take into account who's pitching, who's up next, who's in the hole, who's on base, and the situation overall. Every scenario is different.

 

Also forgot one last bit.

 

The most amount of bunts take effect in the first, seventh, eight, and ninth innings. The fact that 12% of all bunts appear in the first inning is disturbing. The 7,8,9 innings are where nearly 50% of bunts do occur.

[chw42]

Dude, I've known you for less than a year and you're one of my favorite posters ever. I love detail. You're right there there with Kalapse and Qwerty and that gay dude named Witesoxfan (and I love my brothers Soxace lol@the reed switch, Rowand44, Heads and Palehose).

 

I am honored.